(Washington, D.C.) Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan insisted during oral arguments in a Second Amendment case brought by the National Rifle Association that she can’t really define ‘gun rights’ because she isn’t a founding father.
“As you know, I wasn’t there when our Constitution was written. I wasn’t in on those discussions,” Kagan said during the hearing. In fact, neither was anyone in this room. So suffice to say, it’s not really feasible for me to define what ‘gun rights’ are really supposed to be.
“Had any of us actually been present during these deliberations, then naturally, we’d have a much better understanding of what our founding fathers actually intended,” Kagan continued. “I know there are a lot of opinions out there about what ‘shall not be infringed’ actually means, along with ‘the right to keep and bear arms,’ but both of these phrases can be made to mean something different, especially when Democrats are making the argument.”
Asked by the NRA attorney if Kagan had read any materials written by the founders to explain their views on the Bill of Rights, such as the Federalist Papers, she replied she tried once.
“But nobody talks or writes like that today, so again — just very confusing,” she said.
